ACIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad V. Sri O.V. Ramana Reddy, HUF, Hyderabad

CO 2/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9072 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T DIWAKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1670/HYD/11 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ASST . COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 6 ( 1 ), HYDERABAD V/S. SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD (PAN AA AHO 3804 M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.2/HYD/2012 (IN ITA NO.1670/HYD/11) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD (PAN AAAHO 3804 M) V/S. ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 6 ( 1 ), HYDERABAD ( CROSS - OBJECTOR ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T.DIWAKAR PRASAD DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.A.SAI PRASAD DATE OF HEARING 10.10. 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.10.2013 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS - OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IV, HYDERABAD DATED 29.7.20 11 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. APPEAL OF THE REVENUE : 2. THE ONLY I S SUE AS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS APPEAL IS WI T H REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 2 LAND AT RS.900 PER SQ. YARD AND OF THE BUILT UP AREA AT RS.100 PER SQ.FT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPU T IN G CAPITAL GAINS. 3. BRIEFLY FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS A HINDU UNDIVI D ED FAMILY (HUF). FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE FIL E D ITS RETURN OF I NCOM E ON 30.7.2008 DECLARING A TOT AL INCOME OF RS.22,51,33,340. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, ASSESSEE SOLD ITS PROPERTY LOCATED AT H.NO.8 - 2 - 544 AND 8 - 2 - 544/1, BANJARA HILL S , HYDERABAD ADMEASURING 5600 SQ . YARDS A LONG W I TH AREA OF 6870 SQ. FT. FOR A CON S ID E RATION OF RS.31,25,00,000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT WHIL E COMPUTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.1 , 000 PER SQ. YARD AND THAT O F THE BUILT UP AR E A AT RS.100 PER SQ. FT. AS ON 1.4.1981. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISAGREEING W ITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY THROUGH TH E R ANGE INSPECTOR AND FOUND THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FORM JOINT SUB - R E GISTRAR - I, HYDERABAD (SOUTH), THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1 9 8 1 OF LAND AND BUILT UP AREA ARE RS.75 P E R SQ. YARD AND RS.34.10 PER SQ. FT. RESP E CTIVELY. HE THEREFORE CALLED UPON TH E ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER TH E SRO VALUATION SHALL NOT BE ADO P TED. IN R E PLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SRO RATES CANNOT BE TAKEN AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS PER SETTLED POSITION OF LAW. IT W A S SUBMI T TED T H A T THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SITUATED IN A PR I ME LOCATION IN BA N J A RA HILS, VERY NEAR TO TAJ BANJARA, A TWO STAR HOTEL, AND HENCE THE ACTUAL FAIR MARKET VALUE IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE SRO VALUE. I T WAS SUBMI T T E D THAT TH E SRO RATES REMAINED UNCHANGED FROM 1976 TO 1984 AND REVISED ONLY TH E REAFTER TO RS.1, 000 PER SQ. YARD FROM RS.150 PER SQ. YARD. TH E RATE WAS REVISED TO RS.1,500 PER SQ. YARD IN 1987 ; TO RS.4,000 PER SQ. YARD IN 1994 AND TO RS.10,000 IN 1997. I T WAS THUS SUBMI T TED THAT OVER A PERIOD O F 15 YEARS, THE SRO VALUE HAS GONE UP BY 140 TIM E S. TH E ASSESSEE RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGH COURTS AS WELL AS DIFFE RE NT BENCHES OF THE ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 3 TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THE HYDERABAD BENCH E S OF TRIBUNAL TO SUBMIT THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY TH E ASSESSEE I S CORRECT . T O JUSTIFY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADO PTED BY IT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CERTAIN COMPA RA BLE CASES AND ALSO SUBMITTED A REPORT FROM A REGISTERED VALUER. 4. T H E ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, REJECTED THE CLAIM O F TH E ASSESSEE BY CONCLU D IN G THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS N O T FURNISHED ANY COMPARATIVE INSTANCES SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBOURING AREA S . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT TH E REGISTERE D VALUERS REPORT SUBMIT T ED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO CANNOT BE TAKEN NOTE OF, AS I T I S BASED ONLY ON LOCAL ENQUIRI ES AND OPINION O F THE VALUER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING UPON A DECISION OF THE VISAKHAPATNAM BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA S E OF M.SIVA PARVATHI V/S. ITO (129 TTJ 463) AND DECISION OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF R A JLAXMI TRADING CO. V/S. CIT(250 ITR 581) CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SR O VALUE IS TO BE ADOPTED FOR DETERMIN IN G THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. O N TH E BASIS OF SRO VALUE OF RS. 75 P ER SQ, YARD IN T H E CA S E OF LAND AND RS.34.601 P E R SQ. FT. IN CASE OF BU I LT UP AR E A, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ARRIVED AT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S AT RS.3 0 ,31,23,589 AND TREATED IT AS INCOME O F TH E ASSESSEE . 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE COU RSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTION THAT THE VALUE MENTIONED IN T H E BASIC VALUE REGISTER OF THE SRO CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE , BRINGING TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A), THE FA IR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED IN CERTAIN COMPARABLE CASES WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS IN SOME CASES BY THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS AGAINST THE SRO VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , SUBMITTED THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE O F RS.1,000 PER SQ. YARD FOR THE LAND AND RS.100 PER SQ. FT FOR THE BUILT UP AREA IS REASONABLE ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 4 AND WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUERS CERTIFICATE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY IGNORED THE REG ISTERED VALUERS CERTIFICATE BUT ALSO VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES WITH REGARD TO ADOPTION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS FACTS AND MA TERIALS ON RECORD RELATING TO FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY HIM IN COMPARABLE CASES IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES OF HYDERABAD AS WELL AS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS PLACED BEFORE HIM, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT CONSIDERING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE A T BANJARA HILLS, WHICH IS A PRIME AREA AND ITS POTENTIAL AND FUTURE PROSPECTS, FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND CAN BE REASONABLY FIXED AT RS.900 PER SQ. YARD. SO FAR AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE BUILT UP AREA IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECI SION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF K.PRATAP REDDY (ITA NO.465/HYD/2003) DATED 29.12.2006, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE BUILT UP AREA AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.150 PER SQ. FT., HELD THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE O F THE BUILT UP AREA CAN BE REASONABLY ESTIMATED AT RS.100 PER SQ. FT. AS AGAINST THE SRO RATE OF RS.34.10 PER SQ. FT. ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUPPORTING THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTE D THAT SINCE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AS PER THE SRO GUIDELINES, THE SAME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJALA X MI TRADING CO. V/S. CIT(250 ITR 581) AND THE DECISION OF THE VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.SIVAPARVATI V/S. CIT(129 TTJ 463). ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY COMPARAB LE CASES OF SALE OF LAND IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AFRESH. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 5 REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HYDERABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A CIT V/S. ASHWIN JOSHI IN ITA NO.1428/HYD/2012 DATED 31.7.2013 AND IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. AMEENA KHATOON IN ITA NO.1599/HYD/2012 DATED 5.9.2013 . 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT LAW HAS BEEN W ELL SETTLED THAT SRO VALUES ARE ONLY MEANT FOR GUIDELINE PURPOSES AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY HAS SUBMITTED A REPORT OF THE R EGISTERED VALUER, IN SUPPORT OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BUT HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD COMPARABLE CASES OF SALE OF LAND IN VARIOUS LOCALITIES OF HYDERABAD TO PROVE THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN TUNE WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOP TED IN OTHER COMPARABLE CASES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ASHWIN DATLA IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2012 IN ITTA NO.111 OF 2012 HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT SRO VALU E CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ALSO UPHELD THE AUTHORITY OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A PARTICULAR P ROPERTY KEEPING IN VIEW THE OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS LIKE THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER BY APPLYING REVERSE INDEXATION METHOD. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED IN THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT IS CORRECT, PLACED BEFORE US A CHART SHOWING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY IN DIFFERENT AREAS BEING ACCEPTED AT MUCH HIGHER RATE BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AS AGAINST THE SRO RATE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF WASIF HASAN LATIF, WHOSE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED AT MASAB TANK, WHICH IS JUST HALF A KILOMETER AWAY FROM THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY, THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.1250 PER SQ. YARD AS AGAINST RS.70 PER SQ. YARD FIXED ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 6 BY THE SRO AND THE TRIBUNAL ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE OTHER COMPARABLE CASES, SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL SUCH CASES THE SRO VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REJECTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS FIXED AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE. SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COU R T IN TH E CASE OF RAJA X MI TRADING CO. (SUPRA) , THE LEARNED AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TT ED THAT IT IS TOTALLY ON A DIFFERENT CON T EXT AND IT DOES NO T APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH O F TH E T RIBUNAL IN T H E CA S E OF M. SIVA P ARVATI (SUPRA), TH E LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION IS ALSO NO T APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS THE CITED CASE WAS ON THE ISSUE OF THE DATE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER. WITH REGARD TO THE D ECI SI ONS OF THE HYDERABAD BENCHES IN TH E CASE OF ACIT V/S. ASHWIN JOSHI IN ITA NO.1428/HYD/2012 DATED 31.7.2013 AND IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. AMEENA KHATOON IN ITA NO.1599/HYD/2012 DATED 5.9.2013, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS IN THOSE CASES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE MATTERS WERE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING ANY COMPARABLE CASES TO JUSTIFY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY HIM . AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSES SEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS JUSTIFIED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY HIM BY BRINGING COMPARABLE INSTANCES OF SALE OF PROPERTY IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF HYDERABAD. HENCE THERE IS NO NEED FOR REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE SRO VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE CORRECT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. SO FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED, LAW IS NOW WELL SETTLED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 7 COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ASHWIN DATLA (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WHEREIN T H E HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT SRO VALUE CANNOT BE ADOPTED AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS IT IS NOT PRE PARED SCIENTIFICALLY. HYDERABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL ALSO IN A NUMBER OF CASES HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THE VIEW THAT SRO VALUE CANNOT BE ADOPTED AS FAIR MARKET VALUE. 9. HAVING HELD THAT SRO VALUE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, WE HAVE TO NOW SEE WHETHER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT CAN BE SAID TO BE CORRECT. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER - BOOK, THE REGISTE RED VALUER, WHILE DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THOUGH HAS MENTIONED IN HIS REPORT THAT SUCH DETERMINATION IS ON THE BASIS OF LOCAL ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM, BUT HE HAS NOT ELABORATED THE DETAILS OF SUCH ENQUIRY OR GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR HIS CONCLUSIONS O R ANY COMPARABLE CASE OF SALE OF LAND IN THE ADJOINING AREA(S) TO JUSTIFY THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY HIM IS REASONABLE. THEREFORE, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE DETERMINED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE REGIST ERED VALUER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US A CHART SHOWING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF DIFFERENT PROPERTIES WHICH ARE ACCEPTED BY TH E APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AS AGAINST THE SRO VALUES . THE DETAILS FURN ISHED ARE AS UNDER - ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 8 .. S. NO. NAME LOCATION OF PROPERTY SRO RATE PER SQ. YD. RATE FIXED BY APPELL A TE AUTHORITY PAPER BOOK REFERENCE (PAGES ) REMARKS 1 WASIF HASAN LATIF MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 70 1250 7 TO 17 CONFIRMED BY ITAT 2. G.VIJAYA ABIDS HYDERABAD 200 1380 I TAT 18 TO 25 3 C NARENDRANATH JAMBAGH 100 500 CIT(A) 26 TO 28 CONFIRMED BY ITAT 4. ASHVAN D A TLA KUKATPALLY HYDERABAD 8 750 ITAT 29 TO 36 DEPART MENT APPEAL DISMISSED BY HON BLE HIGH COU R T 5 K.PR ATAP REDDY SECUNDERABAD 125 1200 I TAT 43 TO 48 6 KRISHNA ENGG WORKS RTC X' ROADS HYDERABAD 75 2500 SBH 49 & 50 7 T.NANDAGOPAL KACHIGUDA 80 900 37 TO 42 NO APPEAL BY D EPARTMENT 8 KAMARAPU SRINIVASA RAO KARIMNAGAR 60 900 I TAT NOW ENCLOSED ASSESSEES CASE O.V.RAMANA REDDY BANJARA HILLS OPP. G V K MALL 100 PER SQ. YARD 900 CIT(A) DEPARTM E N T AND A SSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL. . 10. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AFORESAID CHART, IN THE CASE OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT MASAB TANK RELATING TO ONE WASIF HASAN LATIF, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS PER SRO ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RS.70 PER SQ YARD. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A), AFTER REFERRING TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE HIM, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.1,250 PER SQ. YARD AND DETERMINE THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDINGLY. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IS PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CON T ENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL REMAINED UNCONTRO VERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SHRI ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 9 ASHWIN DATLA (SUPRA), THE SRO VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 OF A PROPERTY SITUATED AT KUKATPALLY, WHICH IS A FAR OFF AREA WAS TAKEN AT RS.8 PER SQ. YARD. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL ACCEP TED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AT A RATE OF RS.750 PER SQ. YARD, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. SIMILARLY, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN ALMOST ALL THE CASES, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS FIXED AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE THAN THE SRO VALUE, AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED EITHER BY THE CIT(A) OR BY THE TRIBUNAL. SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS OF THE HYDERABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF ACIT V/S. ASHWIN JOSHI (S UPRA) AND SMT.AM EE NA KHATOON (SUPRA) ARE CONCERNED, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FIN D IN G S O F THE TRIBUNAL IN TH ESE CA S E S , THE MAT T ER WAS REMI T TED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS THE ASSESSEE , APART FROM SUBMITTING THE R E GISTERED VALUERS REPORT, HAD NOT BROU G HT ANY OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD IN T H E FORM OF COMPA RA BLE CASES TO JUSTIFY THE VALUE ADOPTED BY HIM. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PR E SEN T CASE, AS CAN BE SEEN, THE ASSESSEE HAS BROU G H T ON RECORD BEFO R E US, AS WELL AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) , THE COMP A RABLE CASES TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE SRO VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, IT MAY BE STATED THAT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED, IN CASE OF A PROPERTY AT MASAB TANK, AS PER ITEM NO.1 OF THE CHART FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , WAS ADOPTED AT RS.1250 PER SQ. YARD BY THE CIT(A) AS AGAINST RS.70 PER SQ. YARD AS PER SRO AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF ASHWIN DATLA (SUPRA) , THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AT KUKATPALLY WAS ADOPTED AT RS.750 PER SQ. YARD AS AGAINST RS.8 PER SQ. YARD AS PER SRO VALUATION. THER E FORE, CON S I D ERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT A PRIME LOCATION IN BANJARA HILLS, WHICH IS JUST HALF A KILOMETER AWAY FROM MASAB TANK, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) AT RS.900 PER SQ. YARD FOR THE LAND AND RS.100 PER SQ. FT FOR THE BUILT UP AREA APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE, AND CANNOT BE CALLED INTO QUESTION. AS FOR THE CASE - LAW RELIED UPON B Y THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE SAME, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 10 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME A RE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED, AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, IS UPHELD. 11. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE: 12. BY THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE CROSS OBJECTI ON, THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THE ADOPTION OF VALUE OF LAND AT RS.900 PER SQ. YARD BY THE CIT(A), AS AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED AS PER THE REGISTERED VALUER OF RS.1,000. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD. AS CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, HE TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE VALUATION OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.1,000 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER. THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY SALE DEED OF THE IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING AREA TO JUSTIFY THAT THE VALUE OF RS.1,000 ALONE IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE REGISTERED VA LUER HAS ALSO NOT CITED ANY COMPARABLE CASES TO JUSTIFY THE RATE DETERMINED BY HIM. I N THE REPORT, HE ONLY MENTIONED VAGUELY THAT ON LOCAL ENQUIRY, HE FOUND THAT THE MARKET RATE AS ON 1.4.1981 IN THE LOCALITY WAS RANGING BETWEEN RS.900 AND RS.1100 PER SQ . YARD. IN SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.900 PER SQ. YARD AS ON 1.4.1981. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESS EE AS WELL IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS, IS UPHELD. ITA NO. 1670/ HYD/201 1 & CO THEREIN SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, HYDERABAD 11 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS - OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. 15. TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. [ ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25.10.2013 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED/ - 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 SHRI O.V.RAMANA REDDY HUF, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE.NO.8 - 2 - 203/174/A/10, PLOT NO.43, BN REDDY COLONY, ROAD NO.4, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 2 A SST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 6(1) , WARANGAL 5 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) I V, HYDERABAD 6 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX III , HYDERABAD 7 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S